Reach Your hands To Them Who Needs Them

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-jesus-back-tax-rich-205700708.html

Should it be in our natural instinct to extend hands unto the fellow brothers and sisters who desperately needs help in the country? Could you accept these taxes with a logical understanding of the country's economy and social justice?

National Welfare (children)

This article touches on the decrease in child welfare throughout the U.S., especially in Las Vegas.  in 2009, 20% of the children in the country were living in poverty, which was a 3% (2.5 million person) increase from 2000.  There are some programs such as food stamps that help to halt the flow of poverty, but they are becoming less effective as federal and state governments exercise budget cuts.  What can be done to help decrease the amount of children living in poverty? This issue is obviously very important not only for the children at hand, but for the entire nation.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/17/national-child-welfare-survey-examines-recession-1898252928/

Asymetric information and monopoly power at work

See the graphic here about climate change. 

This article discusses how investors (mainly short-term) in corporations across the country do not care about or know the positive effects of giving back to the community.  Some corporations are trying to make it so investors become educated on the subject by creating a social responsibility index.  Corporations are stressing the fact that philanthropy is important not only for the betterment of society, but also for the economic growth of corporations, "Long term it will definitely force the short-term investors to think differently," he said. "You have to give back to make more money ... That has to be in shareholders' understanding."


Do you agree with what the corporations are trying to do? Is philanthropy as important as they are making it sound?


http://news.yahoo.com/u-investors-lack-interest-companies-doing-good-002422443.html

The Tea Party

http://www.teaparty.org/about.php

Do you have a clear understanding of the Tea Party?

"The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue that challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America. From our founding, the Tea Party represents the voice of the true owners of the United States: WE THE PEOPLE."

"Commonsense, Conservative, Constitutional Self-Governance Is Our Mode Of Operation."

"We believe that the responsibility of our beloved nation is entrenched within the hearts of true American Patriots from every race, religion, national origin, and walk of life who share a common belief in the values which made and keep our beloved nation great."

Their 15 non-negotiable beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.


They are pretty much a group of old school people. They sustain the view of morality from couple centuries ago, and voice the injustice of the government. Their main activities are protesting against new taxes, bailout programs, and supporting presidential candidates with shared beliefs.

Are they that radical as the media says? Do you identify with their core beliefs? Are they too old school? What do you think about them?

Politicians $$$,$$$

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/02/federal-government-pay-scale/

Since we've been talking about earnign power, I've decided to put the average salary of the polititians.

Congress members (Representatives and Senators): $174,000
Senate and House Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400
Cabinet members: $199,700
Speaker of the House: $223,500
Vice President: $230,700
President: $400,000


Note: Most Congress members could earn more money based on their elaborate educational background. But the average income of those who are between in their fifties and sixties and with a bachelor's degree is $73,700.

Note: The median pay for Harvard grads are $198,000. But the pay is well over $400,000 for the top 10%, so Obama could have earned more money elsewhere.

Overpaid? Underpaid? Or is this reasonable??

The truth is a slippery thing

The president is getting hammered in the press for not paying attention to the report issued by the deficit reduction commission that he commissioned.  In fact,
 
The New York Times badly misled readers by repeatedly referring to a report of the deficit reduction commission led by former Senator Alan Simpson and Morgan Stanley Director Erskine Bowles. There was no report from this commission.  The report discussed in this article was exclusively the report of the co-chairs. It did not receive the necessary support of 14 members of the commission that would have made it an official commission report, a point noted only in passing toward the end of the piece. This mis-characterization is extremely important in the context of the piece, because the main point of the article is that President Obama ignored the report of a commission he appointed. Since this commission did not approve a report, the premise of the article is wrong.  (see here for link )


Moreover,

The piece also misled readers when it asserted that, "benefits for an aging population soon would increase deficits to unsustainable levels." In fact, the main problem is rising private sector health care costs that were projected to make Medicare and Medicaid unaffordable. The increased costs due to aging alone are quite gradual and affordable.  It is also worth noting that much of the projected long-term deficit would disappear if the Affordable Care Act is as successful in containing costs as projected by the Medicare Trustees.

 Any of us could read the minutes of the commission and determine truth here.  Is it important?  If there is no objective assessment of facts, how do we make the best decisions that we can?

The Government's Position

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2011/0915/Budget-debate-What-should-be-the-role-of-government

This article states that the presidential race and the tax policy decisions must be derived from people's definition of the role of the government.
　
"It looks as if we are going to have an election about the fundamental role of government—in creating jobs, helping those in distress, and preserving the nation’s health and safety"

What is your vision of the role of the government? reducing debt? favoring older Americans? What should be the government's core focus?

Putting things into perspective

From Marginal Revolution (see here)

The richest 70 members of China’s legislature added more to their wealth last year than the combined net worth of all 535 members of the U.S. Congress, the president and his Cabinet, and the nine Supreme Court justices.The net worth of the 70 richest delegates in China’s National People’s Congress, which opens its annual session on March 5, rose to 565.8 billion yuan ($89.8 billion) in 2011, a gain of $11.5 billion from 2010, according to figures from the Hurun Report, which tracks the country’s wealthy. That compares to the $7.5 billion net worth of all 660 top officials in the three branches of the U.S. government.

The wealth gap between legislatures holds with statistically comparable samples. The richest 2 percent of the NPC — 60 people — had an average wealth of $1.44 billion per person. The richest 2 percent of Congress — 11 members — had an average wealth of $323 million.

The wealthiest member of the U.S. Congress is Representative Darrell Issa, the California Republican who had a maximum wealth of $700.9 million in 2010, according to the center. If he were in China’s NPC, he would be ranked 40th. Per capita income in China is about one-sixth the U.S. level when adjusted for differences in purchasing power.

Make believe markets

Economic theory works in theory but the real world is made up of people who constantly push for favorable regulations and systems.  You don't need to own a politician; just pressure your professional standards board.  Think about FASB. (see here for link)

In the height of the financial crisis, the Financial Accounting Standards Board were pressured to pass FASB 157 (“Fair-value accounting”).  Banks were complaining that some of their holdings were difficult to value, thinly traded, tough to mark. So 157 passes and it allows the accountants at banks to mark these to a model rather than the last trade.Derided as “Mark-to-Make-Believe” it leads to the unfortunate situation: The same bad models that led to the original purchase were then now being used to value these holdings. As these bad buys plummet in price, investors in banks have no insight into the loss potential — they are hidden from view, along with the true financial condition of the company. This sort of accounting ... would never be tolerated in a nation where investors mattered more than bankers. Instead, it rewards the incompetent and allows near insolvent banks to pretend they are solvent, thereby allowing the granting of huge bonuses.

I bet you never thought that free markets were so contrived.

Inequality

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/313764/income-inequality-deserves-our-attention?SESS96c27dfd6f2e414a723fc2dbe68dad59=ysearch&page=full


This article argues the importance of equality and the lack of focus on this issue by the government. Occupy Wall Street was the beginning for the government to pay attention to the 1% vs 99% reality that is caused by the dynamics in our sociological reality and it is only getting worse. If economic equality existed, the whole country would benefit from happier people, better health, less social issues, increase in the life expectancy of infants, stronger educational performance from students, lower imprisonment rates, and better mental health.

"According to the AFL-CIO, our CEO-to-worker pay ratio is 343:1. Japan is 11:1. The U.K. is 22:1. We are in a class by ourselves."

The rich is getting richer and the number of the poor is increasing. US should not accept this condition; rather fight against this immorality.

Do you think equality is something US should be focuing on today? This is almost a taboo topic considering how the economy was set up to benefit a certain population, but let's talk about it.

Tax Proposals

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-usa-campaign-plans-idUSTRE81M1QE20120223

Take a look at the candidates' tax proposals. (estimates by 2021)

• Gingrich: tax cuts for individuals and corporations, +7 trillion in debt, +60% in economic performance


• Santorum: +4.5 trillion in debt, -5 trillion in federal spending within 5 years,


• Romney: +250 billlion in national debt, expenditure cuts to assist the poor


• Paul: -2.2 trillion in natinoal debt, abolish federal and state programs

Is it imparative to seize the "swelling" of national debt? Or is it understandable to increase the debt for economic health? What do you think?

This past Friday Mitt Romney spoke about his wealth being a potential problem in terms of his relationship with the common American.  He challenged anyone who is not in support of a "successful man in America" to "vote for the other guy."  Also, Santorum stated that he "does not believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."  Do you think it was in Romney's best interest to make defensive comments about his wealth? Do you think Santorum was helping his chances by implying that he is in favor of potentially combining church and state?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE81N1PG20120227

Mitt Romney at Western University

http://www.fox17online.com/news/fox17-romney-pushes-jobs-tax-cuts-in-kalamazoo-20120224,0,2081058.story?track=rss

One of the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney spoke at Western on 8th week Friday.
Romney's speech at Western contained the following

• national debt of %15.5 trillion resulted from poor economic policies


• the next generation should not be forced to take this responsibility


• he knows what it takes to create successful businesses because he is well-off


• banks should not simply take our money for baillouts


• tax cut of 20%

I personally don't believe in the legitimacy of campaigns because it sounds like people say whatsoever to please the public rather than vocalizing what is relevant to their potential actions. If the "next generation" should not contribute in reducing the national debt, then who should? There has been too many times that the president doesn't follow what he promissed his citizens during the campaign.

Do you take these speeches seriously? What do you take out off the candidates' messages and what do you disregard? And What do you think about Romney's views?

WMU vs K-College

http://www.westernherald.com/news/wmu-impacts-kalamazoos-economy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wmu-impacts-kalamazoos-economy

A trivial information of the impact we have on the county's economy.

Kzoo generates approximately $2,000,000 each year by attracting visitors on campus who spend money on various availability in the county.

WMU generates around 9,500 job positions in the county. They attract 10x more visitors through athletics, large scaled events, and research sources. Western brings around $500,000,000 a year.

Should we try to increase the number of students to benefit botht the college and the community? How do your family and friends spend money when they come to visit you?

Do We Actually Care About Homeless People?

short article

http://www.westernherald.com/news/kalamazoo-county-commission-rejects-homeless-proposal/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=kalamazoo-county-commission-rejects-homeless-proposal

The Kalamazoo county commission had a meeting over the homeless proposal last week. This proposal required a new tax of an average of $6 per household to prevent the county citizens from becoming homeless, housing the current homeless, and to create "permanent housing". Although many citizens seemed to support this idea, the poll result dismissed this proposal.

Would you have supported this idea? Do you sympathize with homeless to the extent that you would contribute money for efficient change? Are you srprised that this idea did not pass?

We like markets but like to blame politicians more

Here is an easily read and very complete analysis of why gasoline prices are likely to be very high this year and into the future.  (see here)  The author says:

In just a matter of a few days, gasoline prices have become a major worry for people pondering what might drag down the US economy....
Bottom line: The gas price sure is the result of global supply and demand, plus some unique US circumstances. Politicians, The Fed, speculators, and greedy corporations are hereby absolved.

The author gets hammered in the comments because he ignores inflationary pressures brought about by Fed expansionary policies and so forth.  But what I find interesting is how we blame politicians when markets move in what perceive as negative ways and applaud markets when the movements are positive.  Also, the world economy is complex and no one explanation is ever really enough.  

No easy answers

As gas prices push toward $4 and higher, polticians are calling for more drilling and alternative energy mining in the United States.  But many of the technologies are destructive.  Here is a music video about mountaintop mining in the Appalachians.  Mass transit, more regulation of speculation in energy markets, and such are also valid responses to our growing fuel problems.  Think about the ways that both risks and costs are shifted in each of these examples.  I don't think you can live in a society without pervasive governmental influence for good or bad.  (see here for the video and a short write-up about it).

This article discusses the debt of southern European countries (mainly Greece) and how the wealthier northern countries (such as Germany) are the main sources of funding for Greece's substantial bailout.  Do you think Greece is capable of getting back on track or do you think that northern countries such as Germany are throwing their money away by funding the enormous bailout? If a country that is closely related to the U.S., such as Canada, were in the same kind of financial trouble what reasons would there be for the U.S. to fund their bailout?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/greece-inspectors-idUSL5E8DN97520120224

If you were at a budget proposal meeting

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/10/long-awaited_expansion_of_kala.html

After a 20 year long debate and offset, Kalamazoo County Jail has been scheduled to be renovated over the next two years to expand its capacity. The cost of this project is $23million. Originally, the county jail was built to intake approximately 4,500 people per year, but it currently sees about 13,500 people per year. In average, Kalamazoo city has been spending over $700,000 to utilize other county's jail cells.

"This is a good plan based on the needs of the criminal justice system and on budget issues,"

Given this information, do you support this plan? Or do you think Kalamazoo city should have spent this money on other needs?

Risk shifting, Iceland style

Iceland aided household debtors at the expense of financial creditors during the height of the financial crisis.  (see here for link) 

Since the end of 2008, the island’s banks have forgiven loans equivalent to 13 percent of gross domestic product, easing the debt burdens of more than a quarter of the population, according to a report published this month by the Icelandic Financial Services Association.  “You could safely say that Iceland holds the world record in household debt relief,” said Lars Christensen, chief emerging markets economist at Danske Bank A/S in Copenhagen. “Iceland followed the textbook example of what is required in a crisis. Any economist would agree with that.”The island’s steps to resurrect itself since 2008, when its banks defaulted on $85 billion, are proving effective. Iceland’s economy will this year outgrow the euro area and the developed world on average, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates.

Any household owing more than 110% of the value of their home got some sort of relief.  Good idea or bad idea?

U.S. Trade Deficit with China

This article discusses the trade deficit that the U.S. is experiencing with China.  It stresses the fact that the U.S. may have a very difficult time turning around its deficit because we send raw materials to China for assembly only to import the finished product back to the U.S.  With the growing importance of globalization (as well as our need to remain on good terms with China), how do you think the U.S. should avoid adopting an ever-increasing trade deficit?  What are the costs to major U.S. businesses and the rest of the public?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/us-china-trade.htm

Moral hazard is alive and well

The Volker Rule was

meant to bar financial institutions that are protected and subsidized by the federal government from trading for their own accounts. That is, it’s pretty simple: Traders shouldn’t speculate for their own personal gain using the money you and I pay in taxes.  Yet bank lobbyists with complicit regulators and legislators took a simple concept and bloated it into a 530-page monstrosity of hopeless complexity and vagueness.  (see here)

And why not?  I'd love to use someone else's money to speculate with.  I'd get to keep the gain and you would bear the loss.

Bailout

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/20/business/greece-bailout/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I noticed this article today and thought it was pretty significant. It basically describes the Eurogroup's decision to spend $173 billion in order to help Greece. Without the help, Greece would default and be in a lot of trouble. The article also explained that Greece is currently in a pile of debt that equates to 160% of its GDP. Greece is in its 5th year of recession and saw its GDP fall by 6.8% last year. Do you think that this bailout will help turn Greece around? Or is it just a short term fix to a giant problem?

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/16/politics/women-lawmakers-hearing/index.html

This article replies to the recent hearing over Obama's administration's regulations requiring health insurance coverage for contraception. People are angry over the fact that this issue is entirely about women's rights and regulations, and the fact that during the first panel of witnesses for the issue, there was not a single women representative. The article also states that some women witnesses were turned down. Is this healthy for our country who has aimed so far for equality between race and sex, to seemingly make a statement like this? How does this effect citizen's view and confidence in the government? Can you think of any other examples where these ironies seem to come up in government? What kind of impact will this new regulations have on the tax budgets?

Florida Set for New Cut in Spending on Colleges

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/us/florida-set-for-new-cut-in-spending-on-colleges.html?ref=education

Throughout this economic crisis, the subject of our national debt and our government spending mentality has been questioned. In order to deal with these issues, its clear that cuts have to be made. This article talks about the cuts that Florida is going to implement for higher level learning education. For this country, education is incredibly important, is this the area that we should be cutting budgets? If not, where else would it be relevant to cut our spending? Or is this simply a fact that budget cuts have to be made and it has to start somewhere? Citizens don't want increased taxes, but cutting our spending is almost more difficult to take action.

Obama's tax record

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/30/news/economy/Obama_tax_record/index.htm?iid=EAL

I found this article interesting, there is a lot of talk about what different candidates are aiming to do with their tax plans, but this one lays out what Obama has done during his presidency and what he is aiming to do now. Is there anything that surprised you in this article? And what do you think about the Buffett Rule, that many say Obama is trying to use as a guideline for tax structuring? The article also states at the end "President Obama has a lousy record in terms of the making the tax code more complex." Is our tax system too complex in every aspect, especially if normal Americans don't understand it and often have to hire others to do their taxes for them? Is it healthy for a nation to have a tax system that its citizens don't understand?

Is it really okay for government laws to violate the Constitution?

I have been thinking about some of the comments about the passage of the NDAA.  Another source writes

In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means.  The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.  (see link)


I've thought a lot about our willingness as a people to differentially apply our constitutional protections.  I think many of us feel protected by our place in society, our way of life, so that we "know" that this kind of treatment would never happen to us.  But political power is a funny dangerous thing.  You just never know who and what might have power over your choices.  The idea that some government agency could imprison you for an unknown amount of time with no due process on just a suspicion is scary.  This country may not have always lived up to its ideals but the basic promises of liberty and justice were in place.  Now I think we are chipping away at them. 

Cupcake budgeting

I actually like this explanation of what off-budget means in government.  (see here)  Do you like cupcakes?  Note how the off-budget accounting is very similar to cheating.

Tax Cut Extension Passes; Everyone Claims a Win

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/politics/congress-acts-to-extend-payroll-tax-cut-and-aid-to-jobless.html?ref=us

This is a new article talking about congress's decision to extend the payroll tax cuts that were so highly debated recently, and seems like it could become central to the presidential race. There is no doubt that by extending these tax cuts it promises to help out many citizens ( 160 million according to the article). But what I find interesting is that we are continuing to attempt to cut taxes, yet everyone still expects that the government to not only save the economy (and bail out businesses) but also to deal with its national debt. Do you think the government is prioritizing the US citizens through passing this bill as it should, or are they shying away from other issues? How do we deal with the public conception that the government should be able to save everything? And what kind of impact will this have upon the presidential race?

TAXES: Trickling Down - Why the corporate rate is so low

I recently read this short article in TIME magazine.

35% - Nominal corporate income tax rate

12% - What companies actually paid in fiscal 2011

"Much of the tax debate has been about whether the 1% pay their fair share. But corporations paid just 12.1% of their domestic income in federal taxes in Washington's most recent fiscal year - the lowest rate in at least 40 years. Companies are supposed to be taxed at 35%. Why are they paying so little?

In part to stimulate the economy. Uncle Sam gave companies the right to write off 100% of the purchase price of new equipment in 2010 and 2011. That has direct benefits of spurring investment and creating jobs.

The rate also reflects firms' deft use of loopholes. The portion of federal taxes paid by corporations has been shrinking for decades. In 1943 it was nearly 40%, a high-water mark. In 2012, corporations accounted for 9% of the nation's tax bill.

According to tax attorney Howard Barnet, multinational corporations have more tax-avoidance tools than ever. One proposed solution is to eliminate corporate taxes and instead boost the tax rate on dividends and capital gains, now 15%. Profits would flow to shareholders, who can't dodge taxes as easily. Says Barnet: 'It's just a few sucker companies out there that pay the full corporate tax rate.' The rest of us pay for it."

I thought this article was interesting and really related to what we have been discussing in class.

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16873788

This is an article from BBC News, I thought it would be interesting to see how the rest of the world if viewing the US economy. It lays out lots of statistics about employment that seem very comforting. Would you expect a UK source to be looking at the recent economic trends in the US optimistically? Do you think these unexpectedly better statistics are due to the government's efforts to stimulate the economy, or are they simply due to the business cycle and the US eventually making its way out of it's recension?

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html

Government assistance has become widespread and has its root deep within our country. The article talks about the shift in mindset that the government safety net has undergone, from keeping Americans from abject poverty towards maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. How do you feel about such a drastic shift in government assistance? And does your opinion change when you put it into the context of how deep our country is in debt at the moment? Is the government spending money wisely, and if not, where do you think our money should be going? Is it healthy for such a huge porportion of our citizens to be dependent upon government assistance?

Rational ignorance becomes irrational as costs change

The NDAA was signed into law after the holidays.  This law, the

2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contains indefinite detention without trial provisions which violate a shocking number of Constitutional and international civil rights protections.(read more)

There is a short video clip with the blog piece cited that explains more about the law.  Several bills have been introduced in the house to repeal the worst parts of the law.  Public outcry could make the difference here.  But will it happen?

Modern banking practice

Barry Ritholtz is a well-known financial blogger.  He does a great job of explaining the asymmetrical risk involved in modern banking.  (see here)  He explains:  

"Consider your basic bank account — checking, savings, passbook, etc. We go through massive contortions to create an illusion that your money is yours, that its safe and sound in a bank with your name on  it, in your own virtual safe deposit box. But that is simply not the reality of modern banking. What you perceive as “your money” is little more than an electronic journal on the banks accounting ledgers.  Fractional reserve banking means that the $100 you deposit is lent out — only $10 of your $100 is kept in reserve. Under normal circumstances, with thousands of depositors and millions of dollars, the banks have no trouble giving customers who ask for their money back the full amount at anytime. But it is not as if your money is sitting in an account waiting for you — you merely have a claim on those monies, and that claim is insured by the FDIC, and backed by taxpayers (theoretically)....

When the next bank blows up — note I said when and not if — their depositors will become counter-parties. Those depositors are you, just like MF Global’s. Only, you as counter-part are not first in line with a claim on the monies — the folks on the other side of the trade get first dibs.
So this bank blows up, the trades settle, the counter party banks/brokers get paid, and whatever is left (if anything) goes to depositors. The FDIC will make good up to $250,000. FDIC’s budgets comes from a small fee on banks. If the losses are great enough, it will exceed their budget and so the taxpayer than makes up the difference.  You are, in fact, a counter-party to your bank."

Legislative changes in the 1990's led to this situation; the Frank-Dodd bill could help soften the risk to the taxpayer and depositor but the banks and large corporations are fighting against the enactment of this law.  Most of the American public isn't following/doesn't understand the issue and so the banks are winning in Congress.  

Economic Growth Gives Lift to Obama in NYT/CBS Poll

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/economic-gains-give-lift-to-obama-in-poll.html?_r=1&ref=politics

This article talks about the tie between Obama's popularity and the voter's optimism with the economy. This is interesting to see how as the perception of the economy gets better, the more it seems like Obama's chances of being reelected are based more and more on the present state of the US rather than on what he has accomplished over his term in presidency. Should President Obama be evaluated for everything that has happened over his term in office, regardless of whether he caused them or not, or should we focus simply on the state of the economy as it is now? Is it realistic to think that people will factor in more than the present popularity ratings? And how much value can we place in these numerous polls that come out, whether it is about Obama's approval rates or the current standings of the Republican presidential candidates?

Romney: U.S. should sell GM stake

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/14/news/economy/romney_gm/index.htm?iid=GM

This is an interesting article about Romney's desire for the U.S. to sell it's GM stake now, when it is at about half of what it needs to be for taxpayers to break even. Romney also argues in the article that Detroit would have been better off without the government bailout a few years ago. What do you think about this?

Bernanke Holds to 2014 Low-Rate Vow Even as Unemployment Falls

This article (link here) talks about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's pledge to keep borrowing costs close to zero at least through late 2014. This is interesting considering the unemployment rate fell to a 3 year low. Bernanke has been criticized for his pessimism about the labor market. Take a look at the article. Do you think the Fed should continue its policy of near-zero borrowing costs despite the economy showing signs of recovery?

Military Cuts and Tax Plan Are Central to Obama Budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/us/politics/obama-budget-raises-taxes-on-the-rich-to-spend-on-jobs.html?ref=us

President Obama announced his budget yesterday with a strong emphasis and cutting military spending and raising taxes. Republicans are obviously opposed to the new budget however many of the suggested plans seem to be what is best for the country in order to decrease the deficit. Do you agree with the plans suggested by the president? If not, what do you believe needs to be done to help decrease the deficit? Do you think politics sometimes get in the way of actually doing what's best for the country?

As America gets poorer, it gets more conservative

Look at the piece in Business Insider, particularly the graphs.  (link here)  The strange thing is how most people are not voting in line with their true self interest.  Maybe this is the start of a new dark age?

Forget politics for a moment: is it a good budget?

President Obama has released his 2013 budget request.  (see here)  The budget is "a blueprint for how we can rebuild an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded."  It includes a mix of new expenditures on job creation, infrastructure, and education, tax reform, and expenditure cuts.  What chance do you think it has in Congress?

Anxiety over incomes hits consumer morale

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7BM0AB20120210

This is an interesting article about a supposed drop in consumer morale in February. The index dropped for the first time in six months. Despite optimism in job prospects, the index reflected general anxiety over personal finances. This article made me think of the role of consumer confidence in an economy and how important consumer morale can be to an economy in recovery. Do you think there are ways to stimulate consumer confidence? How important is consumer satisfaction with their incomes?

Obama Faces Task of Selling Dueling Budget Ideas

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/us/politics/obama-budgets-dueling-priorities-stimulus-and-deficit.html?_r=1&ref=federaltaxesus

President Obama releases his budget plans today and faces the challenge of persuading voters that he has a long-term plan to reduce the deficit, even as he highlights the stimulus spending and tax cuts that increase deficits in the short term.What is your opinion on the president's proposal and do you think it is possible to accomplish?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-budget-transport-idUSTRE81C1BP20120213

In Obama's recent budget proposal, he would like to raise certain airline fees for carriers, passengers, and airports as part of the deficit reduction plan. This would create more costs for the airlines and the passengers, but less costs for taxpayers. The proposal estimates $32 billion in new fees over the next ten years. Although this is obviously a substantial amount of money, in regards to the current budget deficit it is minuscule (especially if it is over ten years). However, the increases are also relatively small- $5 one-way ticket fees for bag screening (up from current $2.50) that would increase to $7.50 by 2018, a $100 departure fee for all airlines, and a grant cut to airports of $2.4 billion over the 10 years. Do you think the benefit of $32 billion in deficit reduction outweighs the added costs to passengers and airlines?

Jack Lew Defends Tax Increases in 2013 Budget, Insists Congress Extend Payroll Tax Cut

Jack Lew Defends Tax Increases in 2013 Budget, Insists Congress Extend Payroll Tax Cut

According to Lew, "the president’s proposal will reduce spending so it will no longer add to the deficit and will create stability in the economy." Yet, when Obama took office, he pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. This is now the fourth year that the deficit spending exceeds $1 trillion. The new tax increases include a minimum tax rate of 30% for millionaires and involves $1.3 trillion in deficit spending and $1.5 trillion in added tax revenue. Do you think the announcement of this new budget plan could hurt or help Obama in his campaign for re-election?

For Romneys, Friendly Code Reduces Taxes

This article deals with Mitt Romney and the taxes he pays. Near the end the article says, "Mr. Romney and other Republican candidates have not only opposed higher taxes on the wealthy, but also favor maintaining or expanding the relatively low rates for capital gains and investment income, breaks that Republicans and others favor as a way to spur investment and reward risk-taking but which critics say have fed the growing wealth gap."

"Those reductions in taxes on investments began with a deal between Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and Mr. Romney’s chief rival for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the House. They accelerated under President George W. Bush, who cut taxes on dividends and capitals gains to their current levels, and survived a push by Mr. Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress in 2010 to restrict tax advantages for financial managers. Indeed, if Mr. Romney became president and won approval of his own tax proposals he would pay less in federal taxes than he would under current law."

What do you you guys think about Romney's taxes? Do you or do you not believe it's hurting the economy/ Should the wealthy have higher taxes? Do you believe Republicans (as referred to in the article) favor lower taxes to "spur investment and reward risk-taking" or do they just care about their own personal wealth?Also, what does this issue mean for Romney as a candidate, if anything?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/romneys-tax-returns-show-21-6-million-income-in-10.html?pagewanted=all

Break Up the Banks? Here’s an Alternative

The following article (available here) provides an interesting take on federal bailouts and the "super banks" that have emerged in the past several years. The article states that breaking up these large banks may not be the best way to restrain the power of these large institution. The author writes, "So the logic of cutting down huge institutions could mean splitting the largest ones into several pieces. Yet banks do not always come in easily divisible parts. Such a move could amount to eradicating the largest banks rather than splitting them up — and eradication is both politically unlikely and potentially disastrous for the economy. In short, if the resulting parts of a divided bank cannot turn a profit, the split-up may prompt the very bailout it was trying to avoid." Furthermore the article offers a compelling alternative to breaking up large banks. What's your take on this approach?

r America’s Legacy Cities

It is always fun to see how a phrase catches on. Last year I went to the American Assembly meeting in Detroit. The organizers wanted a new name for shrinking rustbelt cities. I suggested "legacy city." The name was used by the researcher group I was with in Boston and you can see it here. Do names matter? Or will the outcome be the same?


Citiwire.net » Wanted: A New Planning Lexicon for America’s Legacy Cities

Key tax deductions left hanging

Key tax deductions left hanging

This is an easy to read article about the current tax policies that have the potential to change for U.S. taxpayers within the next year. Right now, the key issues being discussed are the payroll tax and the federal unemployment benefits. However, there are still more than 50 business and individual tax breaks that will be expiring and then brought back from the "dead" for 2013. Some of these include: mass transit tax break, state and local sales tax deductions, mortgage insurance deductions, school teacher deductions, and higher education deductions. The main issue with the uncertainty with these deductions is that tax break amounts are subject to reduction. Congress could be hurting a lot of taxpayers who are counting on those deductions and are not prepared for the change. Do you think Congress is leaving these individuals enough time to adjust their lifestyles and savings to fit this new plan in 2013?

Half of Wealthy Americans Agree with Buffett, Would Pay Higher Taxes

I found another interesting article which relates to the issue of economic inequality and taxes. Based off what the article says, what do you guys think? Do you think the rich truly agree with the tax raise or are they against it and just saying it because it's a hypothetical situation? Do you believe the idea that the rich are skeptic because they don't know where the money is going? Do you even believe an increase of taxes on the very well-off is something are country needs?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/half-wealthy-americans-agree-buffett-would-pay-higher-taxes/42145/

Who Doesn’t Pay Federal Income Taxes (Legally)

The following article
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/
is from last summer but I thought it was very applicable to our current topic. The article essentially outlines who (among tax filers) pays federal income tax. In reference to 2011, the article reads, "According to new data from the Tax Policy Center, this year 46.4 percent of tax filers will have no federal income tax liability." While many people within this group are exempt from paying federal income tax because they have such low incomes, it's interesting to note how many people from the "middle 20%" and up do not pay federal income tax. If nothing else, at least check out the chart in the middle of the article.

Do you think that this many people should be exempt from paying federal income tax? Should those people in the bottom brackets have to pay federal income tax? Should corporate gains be regulated more in order to ensure that the top brackets pay more federal income tax?

Income Inequality

This article focuses on the issue of income inequality in the United States. Income inequality in the U.S. is now greater than it has been since the 1920s. The article talks about this issue and mentions that as of recently there has been a change. The article says that now, "The rich, as a group, are no longer getting richer. Over the last two years, they have become poorer. And many may not return to their old levels of wealth and income anytime soon."

The article finally raises a question I want to direct at the class, "will harder times for the rich ultimately benefit the middle class and the poor, given that the huge recent increase in top incomes coincided with slow income growth for almost every other group?" Also, another question I would like to ask is do you actually believe the richer are no longer getting richer, and or do you think this trend will last?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/income/income_inequality/index.html

US Study Doubts Merits Of Payroll Tax Cuts

US Study Doubts Merits Of Payroll Tax Cuts

This is an interesting article that concludes by saying, "Therefore, as the US has one of the highest corporate income tax rates among OECD countries, and already has the most progressive income tax system of any industrialized nation, the TF concludes that 'the evidence strongly suggests that the key to boosting long-term economic growth in the US is to cut tax rates on corporate and (higher) individual income'." It is arguing against the use of payroll tax cuts, as it stimulates short term growth, but actually has no effect on long term growth. At the same time, high corporate income taxes and and high individual income taxes have a negative effect on long term growth. The author goes on to say that "Estimates suggest that cutting the corporate rate by 10% could be associated with an increase in total real gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 11.1% over the period. High individual income taxes...cutting the top rate by 10% is associated with an increase in total real GDP growth of 7.5% over the period." Do you think these numbers are accurate, or overstated? It kind of sounds like it is too good to be true for everyone involved - corporations, the federal government, and high income individuals. But who will this hurt?

A Comparison Of Candidates' Tax Plans

The following article
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/09/146652190/a-comparison-of-candidates-tax-plans
outlines the various tax plans of President Obama and all of the potential Republican candidates. Each plan is divided into individual taxes, corporate taxes, dividends and corporate gains, and impact. The article is very concise and accessible so take a look.

As addressing inequality has emerged as a central theme to the 2012 Presidential election, I think it's important that voters are informed on each candidates' tax plan. What's your take on each candidate's plan or perhaps a single candidate's plan? Are these candidates missing anything important in their plans? Do you think any candidate's plan includes something too outlandish that will hurt their chances at election?

Taxing investment income

The Atlantic had a really good piece on the incentives of not taxing investment income yesterday.  One piece said,

Zuckerberg and Mitt Romney (who, as everyone knows, paid a 13.9 percent tax rate for 2010) both benefit from tax preferences on investment income -- in this case, the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains.** Zuckerberg founded a company, so he's owned shares in that company since day one, which counts as an investment. Romney benefits from the carried interest provision, which says that even though the managers of private equity funds, venture capital funds, and hedge funds are investing other people's money, most of their fees are taxed as if they were investing their own money. The carried interest provision is utter nonsense. If you are being paid to invest other people's money, you are working, and that's income from labor. It is a pure giveaway to small group of rich people who give huge amounts of money to politicians. For example, six of the ten millionaire donors to Mitt Romney's super PAC are from hedge funds or other investment firms. The bigger and more debatable issue is whether income from investments should be taxed at a lower rate than income from labor.The short answer is that there is no perfect solution. There are valid theoretical reasons to give tax preferences to investment income and equally valid theoretical reasons not to. (see link)

Increasingly, I believe our focus on theoretical arguments is misplaced.  We should be focused instead on the role of government and how to pay for the things that we want.  Of course, finding an answer to that question is also impossible but the path to an answer might lead to more economic growth for our country.  Or not.

Putin Eyes New Wealth Taxes

Putin Eyes New Wealth Taxes

Russian presidential candidate and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has announced that, if elected, his government would increase taxes on luxury items as part of a larger reform of the tax system to reduce the country's over-dependence on oil revenues and fund ballooning government expenditure.

Without elaborating on the measures at length, Putin said that new taxes should be imposed on "excessive personal consumption" such as purchases of superyachts, private aircraft, supercars and luxury real estate. Levies should also be increased on alcohol and tobacco, Putin said.

Putin underscored that his government would not seek to tax companies' reinvested profits as part of the plan, but did not clarify whether private aircraft used for business purposes would be subject to the levy.

Putin faces the challenge of reforming the nation's fiscal regime, to compensate for the massive increases in government expenditure witnessed in recent years. Russian coffers are highly dependent on revenues from the oil sector and taxes on employment, such as social security contributions. An incoming government in Russia faces the challenge of shifting the tax burden towards consumption to revenue sources that are simple to enforce and are not commonly subject to evasion.

This is an interesting article after our Steuerle discussion last night. It seems to have a lot of the same features and issues before the U.S. reform, although a consumption tax is being used rather than a tax increase. How exactly do you define "excessive consumption?" And although it says that it is shifting the tax towards items of consumption that are not subject to evasion, do you think there are still loopholes that people will find?

Unfair Taxation

This is a short article but I found it interesting because of our recent tax conversations. The tax seems to be unfair however there's really nothing the person can do to avoid it. Just because he lives outside the U.S. he pays more, essentially being taxed on his taxes. Is this unfair or is it just another issue that comes with taxes that we as people just need to understand and deal with?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/unfair-taxation.html?_r=1&ref=taxation

Surplus Surprises Michigan, but Is It Safe to Spend Again?

The following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us/surplus-surprises-michigan-but-is-it-safe-to-spend-again.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=michigan&st=cse&scp=3
discusses Michigan's $457 million surplus and the potential plans for this surplus. State officials are investigating as to whether or not Michigan should spend this surplus or save it. Later today, Gov. Rick Snyder is going to propose a new budget that will more than likely address this surplus.

What would you do if you were Gov. Rick Snyder? The demands from the public include more police officers, increased school funding, and fixing roads. Do you think that Michigan should spend this money or save it? Some people argue that the money should be saved for a "rainy day". However as Peter Spadafore, of the Michigan Association of School Boards, puts it “If you’re talking about putting it in a rainy day fund, it’s raining." Are there any potential destinations for this money that you think would help Michigan in their economic recovery?

When ideology trumps rationality .....

Bruce Bartlett, a former policy analyst in the Bush and Reagan administrations (read this as the guy is a Republican and has worked for Republican administrations in the past) warns that the current house republicans are going too far when they confuse good accounting and tax policy with political ideology (see here)  He writes in part that

...this fits into a pattern – since getting control of Congress in 1995, Republicans have often abolished institutions that they couldn’t turn into puppet organizations for promoting their agenda.
In other words, it is an issue of credibility. Republicans don’t really care about accurate revenue estimates; they just want them to show that tax cuts pay for themselves, so they can pass more of them without constraint. As my fellow Economix contributor Simon Johnson has noted, the corruption of the agencies that produce budget data is a crucial cause of Europe’s debt crisis... Republicans want the world to know that tax cuts expand real G.D.P., the capital stock and labor supply, but if spending has any such effect they don’t want anyone to know. Implicitly, Republicans want everyone to think that spending never raises growth because it’s their dogma.  But in the real world, everyone knows that government investments in the national highway system, medical and other scientific research, and other programs unquestionably add to growth. And there are times when government spending can provide macroeconomic stimulus, which the C.B.O. has repeatedly documented, to the consternation of Republicans.  Over the last three years, we have seen Republicans politicize every aspect of policy making – filibustering virtually every administration bill and appointment in the Senate, risking default on the national debt by refusing to raise the debt limit, and routinely threatening government shutdowns unless the White House accedes to their demands."

Scary times.

What happens when the reason for taxation is forgotten

In Greece, austerity measures (paying off foreign bank debt) has led to:

"Very quickly: some of you will have seen that Greece’s tax revenue from VAT collapsed by 18.7pc in January from a year earlier.  Nobody can seriously blame tax evasion for this. It has happened because 60,000 small firms and family businesses have gone bankrupt since the summer."  (see here)

Greece is in terrible shape. 

China: Fast Food Nation. Too Fast Economy?

China's incredible growth rate has finally shown signs of slowing down which has led people to speculate as to future of the Chinese economy. In particular this article, linked below
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/07/news/economy/thebuzz/index.htm?section=money_topstories
highlights the slowdown of the housing market. Americans are very aware of the implications of a slowdown in the housing market. In addition, the article speculates as to the effect of reduced growth of the Chinese economy on the U.S.

This article made me think of the challenges facing the Chinese economy and how instability in the Chinese economy may create problems for the U.S. as China holds a large portion of our Treasury debt. Do you think that China will be able to transform from an export-driven economy into an economy that can rely on domestic consumption? Do you think that infrastructure construction may have had a hand in slightly embellishing the growth rate numbers? Will a lower Chinese growth rate really have an effect on the U.S. economy?

TOP 10 Cities making a real estate comeback:

-Raleigh, North Carolina

-Wichita, Kansas

-Rochester, NY

-Des Moines, Iowa

-Chattanooga, Tennessee

-Peoria, Illinois

-Amarillo, Texas

-Binghamton, New York

-Waterloo-Cedar Falls, Iowa

-Bloomington, Illinois

National home sales are not expected to rise until next year, but expert Barbara Corcoran says that the criteria used to distinguish the top cities as comebacks were 1) home prices similar or below national average, 2) good job market, 3) and low foreclosures. Another thing she continually emphasizes is the attractiveness of the areas for young families and the young, educated population has been growing 42% in the last 10 years. Do you find it interesting that there are no cities in the western part of the country on this list, or would you predict this?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

">

Santorum's Victories

This is a great NYT article that helps describe more about what is going on in the political world at this time. It talks about the candidates and where they stand with the states that they've won.

"Mr. Santorum’s political strength on Tuesday provided yet another surprise twist in a Republican race that seems to offer them up every week. The results had no effect on the actual race for the 1,114 delegates required for the nomination. None of the states that had contests on Tuesday are formally awarding their delegates until later this year, when they will do so at district and state party conventions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/politics/minnesota-colorado-missouri-caucuses.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics

Ex-NASA exec: Gingrich moon colony lost in the laughter

Newt Gingrich's idea about America's future in space has become a bit of a joke in the last two weeks since he announced that America should not only explore space but should also settle in it. But this isnt the first time an idea has been considered a joke. 

In 1844, Asa Whitney suggested to the US Congress that America should build a transcontinental railroad. The idea was originally thought to be crazy and impossible but just 25 years later the first spike was pounded into the ground. 

In 1867, William Seward proposed that America should purchase Alaska from Russia for 7.2 million but this idea was mocked by a writer of the New York Tribune, calling it a frozen wasteland, and was known as Seward's Folly, but it turned out to be one of the best investments. 

America's past shows that some of these proposals may seem ludicrous but have proven to be great investments that can jump start new industries and open new frontiers, do you think that Gingrich's moon colony has that same potential? 

Read the article here

Job openings jump to near a 3-year high

The number of available jobs in the United States jumped in December to near a three-year high, supporting other data that show a brighter outlook for hiring.

Companies and governments posted 3.38 million jobs in December, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That's up from the 3.12 million advertised in the previous month and nearly matches the three-year high reached in September.

December was also a big month for hiring, but there were still 13.1 million people unemployed that month. That means an average of 3.9 people competed for each open job in December, the first time in four years that ratio was below 4 to 1. In a healthy job market, the ratio is usually around 2 to 1.

A higher number of "quits" tends to signal a strong labor market, with lots more jobs and higher pay. With pay levels stagnant, not many jobs offer better opportunities. The result: a low-turnover labor market, with few being laid off, few quitting and moderate numbers of hires.

Although the fact that less people are being laid off is positive news and shows that the economy is very slowly recovering, to the average worker the labor market can still few very stagnant. Should candidates in the coming election keep a strong focus on job creation? Does the slight increase in jobs really mean that the economy is improving?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41155&Cr=sustainable+development&Cr1=

This is an interesting article posted by the UN that describes how technology can bring social and economic equality.  This is a 3-day conference at Standford University that has brought together over 400 policymakers.

Why Romney is winning

Romney's recent victories in Florida and Nevada have pushed Romney to the front of the GOP pack.  Making it difficult for Newt Gingrich to regain the popularity he had after SOuth Carolina.

"The reasons for Romney's success have been widely discussed. Most of the explanations are less about him than about his opponents. In rather consistent fashion, commentators have argued that Romney remains the most "electable" candidate and, in the end, this year Republicans voters are going to make their decision based on who has the best chance of defeating President Barack Obama." (from the CNN article found here). 


There are many factors that have made Romney into a much stronger candidate than he was in the 2008 elections. His campaign has shown to be stronger than expected and he is a better opponent than he was expected to be. Some of the factors that have helped him to become so strong are money, and his well spoken manor. He is good at raising campaign contributions, and his opponents are unable to match his abilities in fundraising. To give you an idea; Romney has raised $24 million and Gingrich has raised nearly $10 million.  This has allowed Romney to spend $7 million on FL compared to Gingrich who spent $1 million. Romney has proven to be a good speaker in the debates. He remained calm during the heated moments and avoiding the social issues. 


What do you think makes Romney a better candidate today than he was in 2008? Do you think he will remains the favorite as the Republican nomination approaches? 

Mortgage Relief Plan

Last quarter many of us in this class took another class with Dr. McKinney called "Issues in Urban Economics". A lot of the quarter dealt with the serious issue of foreclosures and the "what comes next" effect. This is an article from the new york times today that discusses this issue.

In California, there are still debates going on about how much and what is going to be in the new signing. There is a potential for increase into foreclosure help from $19 billion to $25 billion dollars.

"The settlement would require banks to provide billions of dollars in aid to homeowners who have lost their homes to foreclosure or who are still at risk, after years of failed attempts by the White House and other government officials to alter the behavior of the biggest banks."

How much help do you think this could do?

Robo-signing has an especially important impact when it comes to foreclosures. Basically a robo-signer is someone (usually a bank) that signs thousands of affidavits without truly verifying the information at hand. A big issue with this is that people say that they can afford the monthly payments on a house when really this just isn't the case.

This article states that 4million families have lost their homes due to foreclosures when really we can have no idea of how many houses were truly foreclosed on. The documentation was not properly done and therefore without true documentation there is no way for the government to keep track or even tell the true number. There are estimations that within the next year there will be another 2 million foreclosures.

To read the article here's the website: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/business/mortgage-relief-plan-is-closer-to-winning-support-of-2-key-states.html?_r=1&hp

Greek Party Opposes Austerity Demands

The leader of Greece's No.2 party says rescue creditors are demanding measures that will deepen the country's recession, and promises to oppose them "with all means".

Conservative leader Antonis Samaras met leaders of other parties backing the government coalition on Sunday to review austerity measures needed for a new 130 billion euro- ($A160 billion) bailout deal, without which the country would face bankruptcy in late March.

The coalition backers failed to conclude talks after a five-hour meeting and said they would resume talks on Monday.

Since the Greek recession started over 4 years ago, the so-called troika - the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been dealing with bailout and rescue options.

Prime Minister Lucas Papademos had floated the idea of the party leaders joining him in the talks with the troika representatives to argue the case for a different set of measures with equivalent fiscal results. Giorgos Karatzaferis, leader of the populist right Popular Orthodox Rally party refused.

Do you think that these leaders should be more willing to work with representatives from the troika? Based on the fact that Greece has already accepted the help of the troika, I think they should try and work with them in order to develop an appropriate plan for the country.

Get Ready for Next Year!

For all of us seniors we realized that we are now more than half way through our senior year. So, what's next? Looking into jobs for next year I thought that maybe this would help out. There are salaries listed and number of jobs. Besides an economists it has other salaries and jobs listed. Check it out!

http://www.edinformatics.com/careers/kt/economist.htm

What do you mean

when you say that Washington wastes taxpayer dollars?  If you read this, could you just type a quick response?

Big cities cautious about privatizing parking after Chicago's effort

Sacramento is attempting to privatize the parking in the city by auctioning off the city's parking garages and meters; the funds earned from the auction will finance a new sports arena. Only two cities, Chicago and Indianapolis, have successfully privatized their parking, so Sacramento does not have many examples to follow.

In the case of Chicago, a public relations nightmare occurred during the switch due to increases in meter rates and machines briefly malfunctioning. The public outrage has subsided but many political circles view the switch as a mistake. Some comment that by auctioning off parking, there is a loss of control of an important city asset.

Sacramento is pushing ahead still in an attempt to keep their professional basketball team, the Kings, in the city. Do you think that this is an appropriate way to raise money to build a better sports arena? Are there other methods that may work better that may not have potential backlash?

(You can read the whole article here)